Guidelines on upgrading vs. replacing a client workstation

Erik Eckel shares his IT consultancy's guidelines that help them determine whether to upgrade or replace a client system that's showing age.

Although some clients will never admit it, most services an IT consultancy provides are black-and-white objective. Regardless, some clients will equate technical proficiency with something akin to sorcery or spirit conjuring. I believe the possible reasons why are: these clients don't want to admit they don't understand the technologies upon which their businesses have become dependent; it pains them to concede they need assistance from a third party; or they're reluctant to invest in technologies upon which they regret being dependent.

But that's too bad, because whether the client operates a medical practice, a manufacturing facility, or an automotive repair shop, they need computers to manage their operations and billing, among other functions. Problems begin when the business owners' frustrations project their way into the relationship with the IT consultant. Hardware lifecycle management is the best example.

One characteristic that is way too common is that clients don't understand why their six-year-old Intel P4-powered, 512 MB RAM-packing, bad-disk-sector-laden aging Windows XP hulk of an exhausted machine no longer runs like it's still 2002. They want to spend $100 and have it run like new again for another six or seven years. It isn't going to happen. The $399 special advertised in the local office superstore's sales circular also won't solve their problems. The trick is getting customers to understand why without having them think you're the modern day equivalent of a snake-oil salesman. With the economy continuing to punish many industries, the issue has reached epidemic levels.

Several years ago I was inclined to let clients who were particularly reluctant to replace aging workstations talk me into upgrading their existing computers. You know the drill: add some extra RAM, maybe add a second hard disk for additional storage, perform a thorough tune up, and maybe even upgrade the OS.

Those days are over. Too often the client invests $300-$400 upgrading an older system only to see the system's power supply or primary hard drive fail four or five months later. Then you're stuck having to perform additional repairs or even replace the hard disk and reinstall the OS because the client has sunk money into the old machine. Then the motherboard fails. It's just a losing proposition, in my mind.

How to know what's best?

How do you know whether it's best for the client for you to upgrade or replace a system that's showing age? It depends on several factors, but my office has tightened its guidelines to ensure recommendations match the following criteria:

If the computer in question is a consumer-grade system being used in a business to fulfill critical operations, we recommend replacing the computer with a business-class workstation. No more Celerons trying to run CAD on a Windows XP Home system within a server environment, in other words.

If the computer having trouble is less than three or four years old, and if the client's really strapped for cash, we'll update it, going as far as replacing the primary hard disk and/or upgrading the OS. If the system is more than four or five years old, we believe prompting the customer to continue investing in obsolete hardware is a disservice and cost inefficient.

If the motherboard is the culprit, and if the system is no longer covered by a manufacturer's warranty, we replace the workstation. The parts and labor cost almost never justify such a fix on an out-of-warranty computer.

If a three- or so-year-old system requires only a $49 power supply or $50 RAM upgrade to provide another year or two of service, those fixes should be made. But the service should include a clear warning, probably in writing, that the system is running on borrowed time.

It rarely makes financial sense to replace a failed LCD on a three-year-old or older laptop. Unless the trouble is due to a failed inverter, if the system isn't covered by a manufacturer's warranty, it's likely best replaced instead of repaired.

Summary

There are exceptions to every rule, including these guidelines about whether to upgrade or replace a client workstation.

We've supported 800 commercial clients over the years, which has provided my office with a good baseline of ultimately what works long term and what doesn't. While other IT firms might be talked into completing senseless or wasteful upgrades or repairs, I believe these guidelines emphasize what's best for the client, even if the client doesn't recognize it.

In a future IT Consultant post, I'll address how to make the call about whether to upgrade or replace a client server.

More from Erik Eckel:

About Erik Eckel

Erik Eckel owns and operates two technology companies. As a managing partner with Louisville Geek, he works daily as an IT consultant to assist small businesses in overcoming technology challenges and maximizing IT investments. He is also president o...

Full Bio

Erik Eckel owns and operates two technology companies. As a managing partner with Louisville Geek, he works daily as an IT consultant to assist small businesses in overcoming technology challenges and maximizing IT investments. He is also president of Eckel Media Corp., a communications company specializing in public relations and technical authoring projects.

Like many of you I have worked in alot of SMB's over the years with budgets always going to development rather than infratstructure. Usually what I do when there is a problem is to rebuild (reinstall the OS) the Desktop/Server from scratch, or re-image (if there is an image), add a bit more RAM and make sure that ALL firmware/bios updates are applied then let that run for a while. You would be amazed on how well a 6 year old computer runs after that.
Granted most of the desktops were just for surfing the web and running office, nothing very taxing, but it works.
*Yes if I rebuild the computer from scratch, I will take an image of it.

I've come across situations where I've made the recommendation for new hardware but no matter what I say, the client insists on patching the old system. In the end, it's their dollars and their decision. But I agree that it needs to come with a complete warning that the computer is old and could fail the day after you tune it up.

With the others. If more memory in a relatively new machine isn't the answer, I would replace. At that point it becomes, what are you going to do with the machine? For Office/Email/Browser users, a sub $200 refurb would fit the bill. A power user should get the biggest horse they can afford with plenty of memory and enjoy it for the next 3-5 years.
Laptops: After 3 years every day is gravy. It is what it is.

Too often systems older than three or four years, upgraded thanks to a tune up and a splash of additional RAM, begin encountering other trouble (failed hard disks, blue screens, failed boot ups, etc.) and whoever touched the old obsolete system last gets blamed for it. Refusing to upgrade systems older than three or four years helps prevent that predicament.

Especially with out of warranty laptop's. I always advise taking the extended warranty if it doesn't already include one. I used to work in the SMB space. Too many consumer grade PC's and laptop's out there. I love when they pickup that great deal from Costco only to discover they can't add a Home Edition OS to their domain.

Unless it's an extremely easy diagnosis and a guaranteed fix for $50-$100, I replace anything that's 3 years or older and even consider replacement on things in the 2-3 year range if out of warranty.
In addition to straight part costs, there are labor costs which usually are more than the parts themselves. Additionally new equipment usually means faster processing and therefore a small increase in productivity.
Most business-class PC's come with a standard 3 year warranty. Once the warranty is out, I think it effectively becomes trash if it breaks.
Too many techs waste a lot of company time diagnosing and replacing failed hardware when the cost to replace is similar or lower than the cost to repair. PC's are extremely cheap these days. Laptops are more expensive but so are the parts and the time required to fix replace them compared to a PC.